IlF, you do know of course that it is Sinful Sydney that is so much more likely to be wilder than Perth, that maybe you should talk about the Wild East. Read the Daily Telegraph, the Australian or the Sydney Morning Herald to get the low-down about what does happen on a bad day. And I'm not even referring to the NSW "bear pit", the traffic, or the way children have been known to behave in class.

A little civility and good manners from all, "submitting to each other", as Rose-Tree Dryad mentions, and a little less self-centredness would certainly make us all a bit more civilized, all round, I've no doubt, regardless of personal belief. I doubt that WA trains are anywhere near as dangerous as Sydney's were before the powers that be put guards and police on the train to monitor public safety.

The Rose-Tree Dryad wrote:Similarly, did Paul specifically encourage wives to submit for a specific reason? As in the case of encouraging self-sacrifice for males in marriage, did he feel that this could be a particular stumbling block for females?

No, I think St Paul merely reinforced the status quo at the time for Christian women's own sakes. Since Christianity wasn't made lawful until Constantine the Great (323 AD or thereabouts) it didn't do for women to draw too much attention to themselves, even if they were married to Christian men. It was best to go along with husbands, let them be the spokespeople and also take the risks of leadership both publically and privately. Possibly, St Paul also wanted to impress the Romans with the blamelessness of Christian lives, as gossip among Romans was something like TV watching is today.

But Romans were hardly the only ones to be rough, arrogant and domineering in their dealings with their womenfolk. Pericles, a famous Greek leader, said that the best women were never spoken about, despite Agape, his mistress, being a byword in Athens. I'm still greatly impressed with the way Jesus spoke up for women against the attitudes of his contemporaries, especially as the men of his time had at least been told to look out for widows and children. The adoption of Christianity has only ameliorated male attitudes to women for the most part of Western history, thanks to the likes of St Paul and Jesus Christ. It hasn't stopped public misogyny which led to ducking stools, witch burnings, hangings and other monstrosities. Nor has it stopped today's press witchhunts or pillorying of public figures who happen to be female.

Domestically, it is only since I became an adult that it has become a crime for men to beat up their wives, rather than such actions being part of their domestic rights and prerogatives. And it is only since WW1 that even in UK or in parts of USA that women could vote alongside their menfolk. Although UK has had to live with quite educated and forceful women in its history, especially in the 19th century, it hasn't always been nice to women either. Whilst submission to menfolk has often been stressed, those bits Rose-Tree Dryad mentions about husbands sacrificing themselves for their wives, have far too often been quietly ignored by mostly male prelates.

And in Roman times, when women weren't allowed to speak publicly or take precedence over a man, and where the Roman Republic and Empires were run like a giant Victorian gentlemen's club, where women were excluded, I've no doubt that St Paul would have been irresponsible to have not repeated that women should have the discretion to choose to submit to husbands rather than insisting on getting their own way. Some husbands who were not Christian, and who considered wives as nothing more than possessions they acquired through business or political arrangements, would certainly not have submitted to them, used any self-sacrifice for anyone but their own children, or loved them, as St Paul enjoined the Christian men to do.

Besides, if women got too argumentative, wouldn't they have come off worst if beaten up? Remember also that Caesar's wife should be beyond reproach, no matter how dissolute he, himself, was. It wasn't only being beaten. She might end up divorced, disgraced or executed, with her children left to the mercy of that society and her goods and chattels confiscated.

The Rose-Tree Dryad wrote:It seems like what Paul is saying could ultimately boil down to encouraging men to not shirk their responsibilities in the marriage and discouraging women from trying to be overly controlling...

I take your point about generalisations. However, for me, the mere idea of women becoming "overly controlling" seems, itself, to be one such generalisation, born of the nightmares of domineering and overly controlling men who like to micromanage and criticize everything their wives do, whilst being overly sensitive to whatever opinion or show of individuality she might express.

I'm not saying there aren't really controlling women, only that it is grossly over-exaggerated in popular culture to exonerate passive-agressive men from their responsibilities in marriage as illustrated in your post. Something like people might recognise in Boneywasawarriorwayayix and his mob in Asterix in Corsica, where they complain that their docile and silent women talk too much. But I agree that this might be a stereotype also.

@WW I wouldn't know anything think about sydeny trains since I haven't been their since 2002(I was 7). I assume that Perth would be much safer.

Anyway I think it was new zealand that gave women the right to vote first. 1893/1894 or something and Australia was 1902. which is more than 2(for new zealand) and nearly 2 for Australia decades before women were given the right to vote in the USA(1919). The uk was 1918 but not full to something like 10 years later. Though these years are for white women only and unfortunately the right for black men and women to vote came much later for most countries.

I find it somewhat surprising that NZ and Aus were before "the world powers". It is also somewhat pleasing.

Do you mind if someone like your mom asks you where you're going, IlF, or just people who really have no business in knowing that? In the age of the cellphone, getting all the details on someone's itinerary for the day isn't really necessary anymore, though people who care about you might be inclined to ask anyway just so they know what's up.

waggawerewolf27 wrote:No, I think St Paul merely reinforced the status quo at the time for Christian women's own sakes. Since Christianity wasn't made lawful until Constantine the Great (323 AD or thereabouts) it didn't do for women to draw too much attention to themselves, even if they were married to Christian men. It was best to go along with husbands, let them be the spokespeople and also take the risks of leadership both publically and privately. Possibly, St Paul also wanted to impress the Romans with the blamelessness of Christian lives, as gossip among Romans was something like TV watching is today.

That's a fair point, but Paul also draws parallels between husbands/wives and Christ/the church, and thus it strikes me as advice that's intended to be timeless:

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

It doesn't seem like just a traditional, "let's not rock the boat" kind of thing, but rather part of being a Christian couple; a way to honor God and grow closer to Him. Also, looking at marriage through the lens of the relationship between Christ and the church was definitely a newly illuminated viewpoint at that time in history.

waggawerewolf27 wrote:I take your point about generalisations. However, for me, the mere idea of women becoming "overly controlling" seems, itself, to be one such generalisation, born of the nightmares of domineering and overly controlling men who like to micromanage and criticize everything their wives do, whilst being overly sensitive to whatever opinion or show of individuality she might express.

I'm not saying there aren't really controlling women, only that it is grossly over-exaggerated in popular culture to exonerate passive-agressive men from their responsibilities in marriage as illustrated in your post.

It's definitely true that there has been a long-standing problem with men being possessive of their wives and women in general. It may well be the case that overly controlling women is a stereotype that's been blown way out of proportion, too.

I don't really think that necessarily takes away from the validity of the original argument, however. Men being controlling of their wives doesn't therefore mean that submission isn't still the best general advice to wives everywhere, though that in and of itself is certainly up for debate!

When asked what is the greatest commandment in the Law in Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus replied:

'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

Loving God with everything in you and loving your neighbor as yourself appear to two of the most central messages within Christianity. It seems pretty reasonable to me that Paul's writings in Ephesians are just an outlining of how to continue to follow these most precious and basic commandments within one's own marriage, while also including specific, unique directions to both husbands and wives that take into account the particular tendencies of each sex and how those tendencies may play a role in the soundness of the relationship.

It's just my theory, though. I'm still researching this topic quite a bit. I feel like another good topic for discussion in the near future is what "submission" actually means in this context.

@dyrad I don't mind my mother asking. Though she doesn't anymore often since I don't live at home. It is more random flat mates who become overly nosey and want to know every detail. Who? What when? and where?.

Divorce is a common thing these days. It is due to the acceptance of divorcees in society and I had someone suggest that it is possibly due to the fact that we have living longer. What do you guys think?

Nah. Divorce is on the rise because many people now see relationships as disposable as everything else in life. They get sick of their husband or wife, they get a new one. It's disturbing. I've even heard of people having Divorce parties! Disgusting. There are biblical grounds for divorce but they are few. Otherwise, the word shouldn't ever be considered as an option. If you're married, fight for your husband or wife. Don't give up!

I think around 50% of my year group at school had parents who were still together by the time we finished year 12(mine were included in this). My parents have been together since the mid-eighties and I have only witnessed 1 major fight between them. The same can't be said however for my dad's parents they split up when he was 11 or 12 but remained on speaking terms even to this day. It was majority(if not all) my grandfathers fault. He ran off with some women(who he is still with now) out of no where to a different part of the country. That is the only divorce in my family(not counting distant relatives since I wouldn't know). That is the only divorce in my family that my family know of.

Divorce can be messy when children are involved. If the children are adult or thre are none I don't see the problem as long as they tried to fix the marriage and had a good enough reason for it. Also it really isn't any of my business why and should people get divorced.

The Rose-tree Dryad wrote:If you were going to make one general suggestion to married women or women whom intend to be married, what would it be? Specifically, a suggestion about what they can do to improve themselves, not influence their families;

Assertiveness training does spring to mind, which enables women, themselves, to own their own feelings, and spells out rights and responsibilities in marriage, showing what is reasonable and what is out of order. But I also think that both men and women who want to marry should attend the pre-marriage counselling which is offered, I believe, in most Christian churches, not only the Catholic and Anglican churches these days. I'm inclined to think, though, that where legislation about marriage and the family exists, that such pre-marriage counselling should be offered by the State which registers the marriage, rather than by religious organisations, to stop men, regardless of their beliefs, contracting illegal marriages, such as with underage girls, like the twelve-year old girl in a recent news item in Sydney, which has a large immigrant population. Underage marriage might be ok in some cultures, but definitely not here, when we are having Royal commissions into child care, institutionalised child abuse, and so on.

Otherwise, I'd be inclined to advise not only women getting married, but also men, if they can stand the shock, to have a very thorough discussion about what they both expect in a marriage, of themselves and each other, their goals as a married couple and, in particular, how they define leadership and domination. There is a big distinction which I think is what St Paul was also driving at in his writings, for both men and women. I think there should be far more emphasis on guiding growing young men, in particular, on how to lead, rather than dominate. St Paul has heaps of advice to mainly men in his letters, but these bits about men sacrificing their own egos etc is usually ignored, unfortunately. It isn't easy, and too many young men think manliness is being pumped full of testosterone and alcohol, brawling in Kings Cross or elsewhere. Or lashing out with fists or guns, even at their families when annoyed with them.

Good leadership is when you take into account your partner's viewpoints, when you show initiative, vision and example, not only to your fellow employees at work, but also at home, acting with the welfare of the family in mind, and respecting the goals set for the family to achieve. Even if it is only seeing the garbage is put out on time.

Domination is when the man just rules the household for his own benefit, without any regard for anyone else's rights except his own. This is definitely not the way Christ leads the church. Whilst St Paul does emphasize that women should be discrete enough to submit to their husbands, his suggestions to the menfolk are far more revolutionary in that time and day. And when he follows up his advice to women with a job description of what is asked of men who should be chosen to lead the church, it looks like something straight out of a management textbook.

I've no problem with my man leading, if and when he is in the position to do so. I'd be relieved, to tell the truth. I can't be right all the time, there are other things I regret, and it is very restful to be looked after - occasionally - especially now that I'm retired. Furthermore, it is much better to act if the husband agrees up front, and accepts that what is suggested to be done is right and proper, even if I am the one to suggest it.

But does women being expected to be submissive mean I have to passively accept uncritically everything that is dished out by fate? Silent when I have an opinion, an objection, and an insight into a way forward? Does marriage have to be always for poorer and for worse? Shouldn't I try to make it better, and possibly for richer in some way?

Some twenty years ago, there was a "recession we had to have" which left both myself and my husband unemployed. I made it my business to redouble my own efforts to find work. And I succeeded, thus becoming the main breadwinner for my family of husband, 11 year old schoolgirl, HSC student, TAFE student, not to mention the pets. Should I have stayed unemployed to suit popular prejudices about who should do what, when my husband lost his job of sixteen years, with little prospect of further employment due to his age?

Warrior 4 Jesus wrote:Nah. Divorce is on the rise because many people now see relationships as disposable as everything else in life. They get sick of their husband or wife, they get a new one. It's disturbing. I've even heard of people having Divorce parties! Disgusting. There are biblical grounds for divorce but they are few. Otherwise, the word shouldn't ever be considered as an option. If you're married, fight for your husband or wife. Don't give up!

Sorry, I don't agree that divorce is necessarily a bad thing, if it resolves a bad situation. My parents split up when I was a child of four, when I, too, was put into homes etc, though I've no idea if they, too, would be investigated by the Royal Commission I mentioned, since they have been closed down long ago. My parents never got a divorce, and stayed formally separated for over thirty years when my father died. They communicated through lawyers, they lived separate lives, except for the maintenance my father paid my mother, and even when I went to regular schools, there were custody and access issues all the time, which they had both got into the habit of insisting on, long after I had left home and had my own family.

Even planning my own wedding (and escape) was a nightmare of dancing around their total unwillingness to co-operate with each other, whilst we tried to keep in touch with both of them. Their insisting on their own terms of when they would visit (separately) sometimes harmed not only me but also my own marriage and two eldest children, I'm ashamed to say. Yet my mother grieved for my father when he died, which I couldn't really understand at all.

Though, when I was at my most cynical, I could agree that their non-marriage, which she then claimed was a good marriage, despite their living well separated from each other in different parts of Sydney. He was the love of her life, possibly. But both lives were downright ruined when they could have divorced and lived happily ever after - with others if they had chosen to do so. As Jesus said: Divorce is allowed for the hardness of men's hearts. Unfortunately, women throughout the ages, until relatively recently, have rarely had the legal rights to divorce their husbands, let alone remarry.

Justice Lionel Murphy was instrumental on getting family law on divorce changed to "no-fault", after 1975, when my father retired. Beforehand, men often staged getting caught in adulterous situations to get away from wives they no longer wanted to live with. It was usually men, as adulterous wives would otherwise lose everything, even what men might agree was a fair settlement. Since then, of course there has been an increase in divorce, since it has been made easier and less contentious when all is needed is to be able to show the marriage has irretrievably broken down after at least a year.

But surely easier divorce is much more preferable to the distressing situations where men and women resort to violence and murder, and when people were stuck in rancorous marriages for much longer than they should have been. I remember walking past houses where the yelling and fighting obviously going on there showed me that such disharmony behind closed doors was somewhat more endemic then than is now the case now.

@WaggaW My Uncle and Auntie had a similar situation about 5 years ago. My uncle lost his job(he worked in the mines in WA and had to b let off due to over employment). They had two young children barely in primary school. My auntie had been a successful estate agent before having children and found a job rather quickly. Now he works full time and she works during school hours.My mum and dad do the same. With 5 children my mum needed the extra money but now 3 of us have left home she would get board not working and plus she still has two 13 year olds to look after.

Yeah divorce is very circumstantial. We can't judge divorcee based on them being divorced alone. Who knows the reasons why they got divorced. Same reason we can't judge middle aged people working in supermarkets or fast food shops or not completing highschool. There is also the fact that what one person might think are good enough grounds for divorce another may not.

waggawerewolf27 wrote:Sorry, I don't agree that divorce is necessarily a bad thing, if it resolves a bad situation. My parents split up when I was a child of four, when I, too, was put into homes etc, though I've no idea if they, too, would be investigated by the Royal Commission I mentioned, since they have been closed down long ago. My parents never got a divorce, and stayed formally separated for over thirty years when my father died. They communicated through lawyers, they lived separate lives, except for the maintenance my father paid my mother, and even when I went to regular schools, there were custody and access issues all the time, which they had both got into the habit of insisting on, long after I had left home and had my own family.

Divorce is a very bad and very serious thing. I never said there weren't grounds for divorce. I mentioned that there are some biblical grounds for it, but not many. You and I both know that marriage shouldn't be rushed into, nor should it be treated lightly.

I have no religion(feel like I state this too often but encase of new or irregular members). So divorce has no consiquenes outside of this world. So If I was deciding whether or not to get a divorce it would depend on current issues not about afterlives etc. So divorce or marriage shouldn't be taken lightly by the religious and non-religious but there are many reasons for and against both and you need to make the choice that has the best outcomes for all involved.

Example: A married couple has two children and decided to get a divorce due to continuous fight and disagreements which are effecting their relationships with their children. The children are frightened my fights and outbursts. Kids would be much better growing up with their parents separated than them always fighting.

I can't give a good account because I never went through such an ordeal. I had a very stable family situation throughout my childhood. I feel lucky for that. Yeah there were five of us and money was tight for a few years but we lived in Australia. Good health care system and good benefits for families. I think we also have benefits schemes for single parents as well.

So ... there's an infectious little song called "Rude" by the group Magic, telling the tale of a suitor who asked his future father-in-law for his daughter's hand ... and was told, "No." The suitor laments, "Why you gotta be so rude?" and answers with his own rudeness, "I'm gonna marry her anyway".

I couldn't help thinking that the daughter/twue wuv is royally out of luck. If she marries, she knows that her father does not support her marriage. But if she does not marry, then there are three people (or four, if Mom gets a vote) in the relationship. Would the suitor still want to marry someone who may not be ready to make her own decisions?

Meanwhile, if Dad is simply the sort who would treat any suitor the same way i.e., no man is worthy of his daughter, then has he read Tolkien's story of Thingol of Doriath? True, most marriage partners are not at the level of Beren-and-Luthien. But if the folks want the daughter to find love, to have their grandchildren, to have someone to grow old with, well, that ain't gonna happen with Papa.

I wonder if this song is so popular not just because it's catchy (ear-worm, really) but also because it seems to fill a need. People don't talk about these things enough. Thoughts?

H at first I thought I didn't know the song. Now it is stuck in my head. Though half the time I never know what they are actually singing. I have got lyrics to song wrong so many times.

My family is hardly traditional. I think my mum would get much more say than my dad. She isn't a "picky" women either. I mean she liked my sisters ex-boyfriend, and thought she was too mean to him. I mean if the boyfriend/girlfriend is a decent person she won't dislike them for the sake of it.

TOM wrote:Meanwhile, if Dad is simply the sort who would treat any suitor the same way i.e., no man is worthy of his daughter, then has he read Tolkien's story of Thingol of Doriath? True, most marriage partners are not at the level of Beren-and-Luthien. But if the folks want the daughter to find love, to have their grandchildren, to have someone to grow old with, well, that ain't gonna happen with Papa.

I agree that in fairy stories Dad - if he is Thingol or some sort of monarch - might set impossible tasks for prospective bridegrooms. And yes, a lot of fathers might habitually say no, thinking poorly of the person who is asking for his daughter's hand.

But really, in this day and age, it should be a joint request from the happy couple, not a matter of asking a girl's father before asking her. A girl who is undecided about how she feels about a would-be suitor should not feel dragooned into marrying someone she would later regret. I've a poor opinion of men who have a nice little chat with Dad before asking the girl first anyway. She is the one most affected. And if there are good reasons for breaking off the engagement, I would see it as a lucky escape.

In my own case, simply because of the custody and access arrangements to have access to my father to ask him, my future husband would have had to have me present. And so we simply told my dad we wanted to get married. However, this didn't work quite so well with my future mother-in-law, I'm afraid.

I've been watching with fascination the trials and tribulations of one Prince Harry as he tries to find the sort of girl he should marry. In his case he most certainly has to have not only parental permission but also Grandparental permission, plus parliament and the press, it would seem. A bit daunting for the girl, I should imagine.

I had a rather funny experience a couple of months back. This guy come up to me whilst I was walking back from class, I think I had topped to tye my shoe. Than he went on about how much he liked my shirt/outfit. It wasn't anything special, It was a pair of cons, a doctor who/zelda cross-over shirt and a grayish shorts. Than he just dashed off looking embarrassed, all this before he gave me a chance to say anything or finish tying my lace.

Anyway I should congratulate Eric and his with Hannah for the birth of their first child. Hannah Is 6 month younger than myself and I can't imagine myself with a child for another 10-15 years. So I wish you both the best of luck.

IloveFauns wrote:I had a rather funny experience a couple of months back. This guy come up to me whilst I was walking back from class, I think I had topped to tye my shoe. Than he went on about how much he liked my shirt/outfit. It wasn't anything special, It was a pair of cons, a doctor who/zelda cross-over shirt and a grayish shorts. Than he just dashed off looking embarrassed, all this before he gave me a chance to say anything or finish tying my lace.

D'awwwww! Sounds like he might be a fan of Doctor Who and/or Zelda. Maybe he's a kindred spirit.